Good morning and welcome to our brand new discussion What is a "Classic?" This discussion topic was suggested by one of our participants, Stephanie Hochuli, and it's a good one, and causes more debate every time we begin a Great Books discussion than any other.

I can remember a "Classic" I had to read, something about a Longstocking? or something...You can see how well it took, hated that book with a vengeance and I don't know why. I never saw the reason it was supposed to be so good. Now I have to figure out what the real title was.

What is a classic?

ginny

This is almost an unanswerable question. What is classical music? "Classic" is the result of a consensus of people in that spcific arena. Time seems to be related. Most people don't see the current rock 'n' roll as classic although there are some who do -- but not enough to make it a general definition. Go back a couple of centuries and we see music composed at that time as what we now call "classical" although I doubt that the populace of that time so described it.

I know I have been using music as an example but I believe the analogy holds. Go back a century or so and we have "Moby Dick" or "The House of the Seven Gables" or "Les Miserables." I question whether the people of that time called them classics. They might have described them as "good stories" but they had to age. There are novels being written today which hardly any one notices but a century from now may be called classics.

To students, classics are "what teachers force them to read." How do the teachers choose them? This teacher defines any Shakespeare play as a classic and another calls it "overblown." Same thing with poetry. This teacher calls "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" a classic and another wouldn't consider entering it into the curriculum but instead would use a modern day poem which does not rhyme, does not have iambic pentameter, and contains vulgar language.

I think your question is classic. It's the unceasing struggle that creators of dictionaries have.

Robby

My son is into the classics.... he loves to read but is very tired of books (like Dean Koontz - which I love). So I am very interested to know, so I can get him some "Classics" for gifts.

This came in e-mail today.

MobyLives.com

http://www.mobylives.com/

Named for literature's best-known white whale, MobyLives is columnist Dennis Loy Johnson's weblog about books and writers. The site updates daily with news stories and commentary on the literary scene and the publishing world. Johnson relishes book biz gossip and controversy -- when we checked in he was covering the recent flap over novelist Fay Weldon, who accepted payment (from Bulgari) for product placement in a recent work. Another ongoing piece covers the frequency with which the "New York Times" promotes books by their own staffers.

The question of course is cousin, I would say, to the volatile topic of literary "canons." However....back to "classics."

I would think we need a definition, or several.

Two possible qualities of a classic that occur to me offhand are: 1.) and enduring popularity (or esteem, perhaps) over some period time; 2.) recognition by scholars, authors, etc. that a particular work is a "classic."

However, just looking at some of the previous Nobel prize winners for fiction brings #2 into question. The author of "Quo Vadis" was given the prize, and I would say that the book is sentimental tripe, and deserves its present obscurity.

On the other hand, Anatole France won the prize and his works are hardly discussed or read today either; yet in my estimation they are classics -- "Penguin Island," "Lafcadio," etc.

I would nominate Francois Mauriac's novels - "Therese Desqueroux," "The Woman of the Pharisees." As I would Graham Greene's "Brighton Rock." But both of these authors have slipped in the ratings. I don't think that contemporary society is concerned with types of conflicts these authors wrote about. So, are they failed classics, or something more like fossil classics - not alive today, but prize specimens from their era?

And how do we deal with - ah, good example: the current Nobel prize winner Gao. While it may be way too early to call "Soul Mountain" a classic, how can we deal with it. It is brimming with cultural references that in my opinion are must be understood to grasp the book. But if we are not Buddhists, Taoists or Chinese scholars can it be a classic for most Westerners. Or is it left in a kind of limbo - a Chinese classic, and we take it on faith that it is that. But in that case, is it for us? Perhaps a better example is Yukio Mishima's quartet: "The Sea of Fertility," written in the Sixties. Again, aside from depending heavily upon the Asian ideas of rebirth and reincarnation, it also frequently plunders the Buddist scriptures - the final book of the quartet, "The Decay of the Angel" takes its name and theme from a Buddhist sutra in the Pali Canon, whose object lesson is that even the most exalted in the Buddhist heaven *must* eventually fall, and that the estate of the ordinary worlding is superior to that of such a being. Rather unfamiliar territory, to say the least, but part of a compelling tragedy about spiritual and physical decay. And "The Buddha Tree" by Niwa, for my money one of the most compelling studies of human frailty and evil, but it is about a Buddhist clergyman in the Pure Land sect in Japan...again we are a bit lost without some grounding.

My questions tend to incline me to say that we must depend upon "experts" - wiser, better-educated, more worldly heads than most of us possess. But then, as I brought up in the beginning if the Nobel Prize is any guide (and perhaps it is not) the experts strike more than a few foul balls.

Hmmmmmm. "Longstocking?" Maybe it was "Leatherstocking" Fennimore Cooper. Now theres a fellow. "Last of the Mohicans"....a classic?

Jack

Or Pippy L0ngstocking, the childrens classic? faith

Maybe the only way to even begin to make sense off Classics is to realize that we have to take them in bite-size pieces, e.g.: Classics of the 20th century; classics of modern French literature, etc.

Of course this doesn't come to grips with what a classic is even in these somewhat more managable terms.

Jack

Oh me.. I had hoped for a slightly more lighthearted approach to the problem. Cultural Bias is going to make us look more favorably on books that relate to the WASP or American experience. I am sure that many Chinese and/or South American authors have written great books for their cultures, but I doubt if I would or could read them and get all of the levels they admired. I felt in college ( Many many years ago) that I was forced to read many books that related to the white male experience, and were not particularly appropriate for the female look at things. We now have writers that do appeal to peculiarly female experiences that many males would probably not relate to. Marge Piercy who writes about the feminine experience.. Margaret Atwood... is another. Are they classics in the making? Perhaps. Am I coming from a totally different place than the previous posters? Darned if I know.

Stephanie Hochuli wrote:

( Many many years ago) that I was forced to read many books that related to the white male experience, and were not particularly appropriate for the female look at things. We now have writers that do appeal to peculiarly female experiences that many males would probably not relate to. Marge Piercy who writes about the feminine experience.. Margaret Atwood... is another. Are they classics in the making? Perhaps. Am I coming from a totally different place than the previous posters? Darned if I know.

Not at all in my estimation. I think you're discussing the type of problems from a social viewpoint. There are certain few books if any in the mainstream that reflect the experience of living as a gay person. There are of course many books about gay people, but even the best of them probably wouldn't make sliced turkey on a mainstream list of, say, American Classics of the 20th Century. But I think you'd have no problem arguing for some books by female authors. So, if the various classics list end up containing no books about gay life is that bad, or just a case of high standards?

Jack

The classic lines: No man is an island... apply here, I believe. What ourexperience of life is consists, in part, of the cost of living with social burdens: womanhood, gayness, skincolor, economic sparcity, "youth-challenged". What these factors do to our spirits, how we surpass these "handicaps" can create literature. But, it is the stitching together of the words, transcending the story elements, that make one story classic and another banal. Creating my list of books never to be given up reminds me that A A Milne created classic literature even though few of us ever had our own hundred acre wood. The classic reaches deep within us and strikes chords we don't even know are there, but forever after become part of our souls.

Well on the gay experience thing. I remember reading a James Baldwin.. Possibly " The Blues for ??" It was excellent when I read it.. early 60's I think. I do however vote for Winnie the Pooh as a classic. I read it to my children and now my grandchildren and share in their joy and excitement over a very plump bear who loves HONEY. A classic should have a universal appeal and be readable. I used to own a used book store and sold a lot of assigned books to teens. In many cases, I told them to keep the book and reread it late since assigned books were not much fun, but a particular book they might have bought was in fact a great story. Hopefully some of them actually did it.

I very much appreciate your post # 10 but do not understand the reference to one hundred acre wood. .........elizabeth

Christopher Robin lived in a place which had a wooded area, and it is known in the stories as The Hundred Aker Wood. I'm not sure of the spelling, but what I meant was that what Milne creates with his words is not dependent on the reader having lived where Christopher lived or having experienced the same life he was experiencing. A teddy bear, however hard he tries, grows tubby without excercise, etc., is universally true. But Milne's genius creates a meld of words and mental image that are beyond my powers of description. If you haven't read Pooh, please do. It is a delightful experience.

The joy of first discovering Pooh and Christopher Robin. Oh I wish I could go back to that time. This has been such a horrible horrible week. I want the past back again. Dont we all?

We have two hard and fast rules in the family: Anyone marrying in must learn to swim if he doesn't already know how, and every child in the family must have Christopher Robin in his book case--and not the Disney renditions. The swimming rule you ask--I don't know. I imagine it's like, perhaps, a non believer marrying into a church-going family. He would have to mend his ways. I am so heart sick about our national tragedy. It makes me feel better to talk to you all. .............elizabeth

A classic for me must make me think. I also think it needs to be somewhat universal in the message it carries. I am always surprised at the lists that came out in 2000 of classics. so many books listed that I would not give shelf room to.

Stephanie: Think, yes. What about "feel"? I will never forget the thrill I had when reading My Name Is Asher Lev as Chaim Potok describes the four-year-old son of Hassidic Jews, sitting under the kitchen table, using cigarette ash and his finger to create a portrait of his mother. Imagine, growing up in a family like that (his father was a "diplomat" for the rabbi, traveling all over, his mother was a scholar) in a religion which forbids art. Such feelings I had!

What makes a classic - hmmm - we speak of books that reach our soul but I am wondering - some books are there pulling at me because of comtemporary issues therefore, they seem to have more to say than some very old tomes with archaic language that are on the lists of Classics. Milton's "Paradise Lost,' Shelly's "Queen Mab" with yesterday in tune and yet, DeFoe's "Robinson Crusoe" of one alone in nature, being given a friend, facing fear and learning the equality and value of a soul seems little different to me than Pooh's adventures is the 100 acre wood or Raty and Badger in the "Wind and the Willows."

Although comtemporary values are more comfortable to digest it seems to me that many a male author nailed the human condition that still speaks to 'Every(wo)man's" soul.

I've often felt the loneliness of isolation that forced me to make a home for myself and others using my wits rather than money much like Robinson Crusoe rather than the Swiss Family... I have often devalued friendship and saw in time my judgmental nature. I've uselessly tried to control my enviornment as an après to fear. Where Virginia Woolf my have isolated my soul into the hue and cry for "A Room of One's Own," Defoe and others showed me I was a soul unto myself regardless that society expected different.

For me Classic Lit. is filled with the symbolism that once uncovered, brings me to the place where the seed of my stay on earth is planted and connects me to the universality of man.

Which by the way, some of these very remembered children's books are linked in the heading and can be downloaded or read from the screen in the discussion, Children's Literature Revisited. Take a peek.

Boy this is a great discussion and I appreciate everybody's points, and attempts to define the term "classic."

If you say "timeless" and "can be understood by any age," then you have lots of books which apply which are not worth a fig.

If you say well it has to portray human emotion and experience, again you have tons of books which apply but which are certainly not classics.

It's a conundrum.

Oh yes, yes, Leatherstocking, thank you SO much, kevxu, yes James Fennimore Cooper, the most boring writer who ever lived, makes Henry James look like Stephen King. O, Natty Bumppo, how it all sort of semi comes back to me.

OH no.

But all our tastes are different. For instance Sinclair Lewis? Arrowsmith? Babbitt? Elmer Gantry? Main Street? Won the Pulitzer (which he rejected) and Nobel Prizes?

What's the title of the one he wrote about traveling around the world, the disintegrating marriage? But dated? All his language is dated?

Do people read Lewis any more? IS he a classic?

---

Here's an interesting definition of "classic?" From the Reader's Encyclopedia:

Classics: Any work or body of work of the first or highest order. The term comes from the Roman division of society into five classes. Any citizen who belonged to the highest class was called classicusthe rest were said to be infra classem that is, beneath the class. Accordingly writers of the best class were called classici auctores "classic authors." The term can also refer simply to the literary or artistic works of ancient Greece and Rome.

\

That whole thing is news to me, I never heard it before but it's interesting, if true.

ginny

I believe another important factor in a classic, beside the ones mentioned already, is the author's ability to totally present a "new and different" world. Through the magic of her/his art we see all the surroundings--natural and man-made--we see all the unusual but true characters, well-developed and fitting into and adding to the created environment. When I put down such a book, I look about the room and COME BACK. I have truly been somewhere else, totally emersed in the lives of another set of people. I know symbolism is important but have always been unable to see it until shown, but I (optimistically) feel that the lessons of the symbolism sink into my being through the art of the novelist despite my shortcomings in that department.

Chaim Potok.. I first read "The Chosen" and have since read every single book of his. He writes of a very special world. I am not sure he is a classic writer, but he is a spectacularly good writer. I know there is a line drawn in the sand on the classic, but darned if I can figure just where it is. I agree Ginny.. I read every single Sinclair Lewis, but do I now.. Well no.. But I think I will give one a try to see just how dated they might be.

I can agree to disagree about what "classic book" means. To me I can read anything and then tell you what I think of any book. Any number of adjectives will describe the book and only when it dates from a classical period will I describe it as a classic. I might say, however, that "the book I just read should be a classic," meaning that as time progresses the book will join others which are holding up to being read and reread over hundreds of years. No book written this year or published this year can be a classic even though it may be a great unparalled piece of writing. Still it may become a classic. fr

Are we getting closer to a definition by listing what a classic isn't? Is seems that Stephanie is saying it is more than a great story, or a great storyteller. Faith says it isn't contemporary. Prize winning doesn't make a classic either. What else isn't it? Hmmmm.

In an earlier posting the term "classic lines" was employed, using "No man is an island" as an example. What about spoken lines such as "Never have so many owed so much to so few" which were later printed over and over again.

Robby

Nice guys don't win.

Senior Nagles:

Were you referring to Leo Durocher's remark that "nice guys finish last?"

Robby

Oh dear, I'm so lowbrow. I just can't get over it! ........elizabeth

Yes Robbie

Leo gave that answer when someone asked him why he couldn't just be nice sometimes.

Robby

An example of a classic, that I have read and reread.. Jane Austen "Pride and Prejudice" It should be dated, heavens knows, but it is always fresh, new and speaks to the heart. At least to my heart.

Stephanie: I have to re-read all six of Austen's books every few years. One time P&P is my favorite; again, I like Emma best. It changes from reading to reading. These are Classics to me, too.

Ah Mrs. Watson, always glad to hear someone else does the rereading thing. I have certain books that have to be reread periodically. They must speak to my soul or something.

I'm somewhat "amused" at the attempts to "define" a classic.

Some things just are,they exist,isn't that enough?

Trying to define a classic is like trying to define pornography..as a Supreme Court Justice once said...I cannot define it,but I know it when I see it.

A classic could be anything you want it to be,because it probably speaks to the individual in a very special way. One person's classic is another persons junk.

> " A classic is produced by the cooperation of the public with the author. A classic is a work which is fit to enter into permanent relations with a large section of mankind."

Oscar W. Firkins ( 1864-1931)

I too reread Jane Austin regularly. It's amusing to me that when I first read Pride and Prejudice I thought Mrs. Bennet was a real jerk, but as the decades went by I came to view her as a very successful mother in her time who arranged her daughters' futures very well. ........elizabeth

Elizabeth,, Exactly, isnt it amazing.. Over time Mrs. Bennett gets so much smarter. Of course since I once had teenagers, I was surprised to discover that I went from OK to dumb as dirt and then moved back up the scale to smart.. So.. I guess mrs. Bennett was smarter than I was. The thing about this classic business is the assigned books we had in youth. Some few I actually liked, but oh my,, I will never ever believe I staggered through Moby Dick.. I purely hated that book, Ahab and all whales.

Yes, I hate Moby Dick too; perhaps someone can explain what is readable about it. I must admit that some of the characters are unforgettable but are not ones I care about remembering. I just thought of something positive about it--it has informed by reading of other books placed in that general place and culture. ....and movies too. ...........elizabeth

In the Aristotelian definitional form(ula), a definition of a term consists of a genus and a differentia. The genus is the class of things to which a term belongs and the differentia is the particular member of that class. We feel comfortable in defining a term when we can identify the class to which it belongs and the specific member that it is of that class. A simple example: a table is an item of furniture(genus) that has a flat top and four legs(differentia).

Now while we feel most comfortable with a definition that fits this formula, the fact is most complex terms don't fit the formula very well. Still, there is some sense in attempting to identify the genus and differentia even of complex terms, because it forces us to examine more closely the components that we want our definition to include.

In the present case, what would be an adequate genus for a classic? Try a book. Too general. An old book. A little better but still not satisfying. A novel. What about other kinds of books? A book filled with wisdom. Maybe.

What would be an adequate differentia for any of the above? That has been read and reread for generations. Maybe. That authorities claim is a classic. Maybe.

What the definer looks for is the most precise genus and differentia possible. If either is too loose, the definition seems too general; if either is too restricted, the definition will be too narrow.

Anyone want to try their hand at identifying a workable genus and differentia for a classic?

Some other ways of defining terms include the use of metaphor, or simply describing the item. An example is often a useful way of approaching a definition. Sometimes just pointing to the thing is sufficient definition. None of these last mentioned, however, work very well with abstract and complex terms such as love, God, classic, friendship, education. Actually, nothing that I know of works very well as definitional form(ulas) for terms such as these. We seem to be missing adequate rhetorical tools for defining really difficult terms. The exercise of trying to define complicated terms is useful, however, for it makes us think more precisely about what we're trying to say.

Joining you late, I find the exchange fascinating and stimulating. It will lead us in many different directions - in fact, it already has.

But we have yet to define broad general criteria of what we think make any book a classic. Surely there IS a common denominator, irrespective of our personal tastes and preferences.

One criterion for me personally is the enduring, permanent quality of what is being conveyed, the comprehension of what is being expressed and understood over time.

There is more to the 'classics' of course beyond the Greeks and the Romans; there are modern classics ! So we still need to come up with the criteria.

Classics for me must also convey an emotion. I must be moved by the book. Sometimes to joy, sometimes to sorrow or fury, but always moved.

Of course, Stephanie. Emotions are an important point.

When a reader can empathize with the characters in a book, genuinely feels for the protagonists and is affected by their travails and experiences, that book has the markings of a classic. Thank you for that thought.

Mark Twain: A classic is something everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.

must have characters that can survive the test of time. When I read Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe, I kept thinking that it was a modern book set in the past. A classice must feel 'fresh' when read.

Mrs. Watson, what a hoot! I never heard that, well that makes me look differently at "classic," then? For instance, yes, now what "classic" have we NOT read, that we WISH we did, that we started and simply could NOT get through?

OR could not understand it and therefore did not have the appreciation of it?

I came here to ask if, perhaps, the works of Edna Ferber might be considered classics?

I love her writing.

Her So Big I thought when I read it was one of the best books I had ever read, about a mother's favoritism over her sons. She wrote Giant, and Show Boat, and Cimarron and Saratoga Trunk.

But it's her So Big that stands out forever in my memory.

And then there's Pearl Buck. gaj says it's the timelessness, you can read it today and feel there and that you understand China, I understand that the Chinese have their students read it who want to understand life under the waning Empire. Her themes were universal: love of the land, children, a desire to leave something behind against a world scene out of control. Wonderful books.

But now with Mark Twain's definition, "A classic is something everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read," (Mark Twain)For instance, yes, let's fess up?

What "classic" have you NOT read, that you wish you had, or that you started and simply could not get through?

OR could not understand it and therefore did not have the appreciation of it?

What's YOUR list?

ginny

Ulysses by James Joyce!!!! and I tried to read some d***thing by Proust that my brother said every educated person must have read and could not even get past the first page...so that is the list for today. There are some others. Faith

Faith, I have not read Ulysses either, or Proust, that I can recall. I once had a parent when I taught 9th grade, write me a letter entirely in French, to which he added a note in English that "every educated person reads French."

Boy, I was a young teacher and I was determined to not let him get the best of me! hahahaha (He did) ahahahahhaa, had no earthly clue what he said, then OR now.

I have not read anything, not one thing, by F. Scott Fitzgerald. I don't know why, and I don't know if he's considered a classic, but I have not.

But the worst, the absolute worst is the Leatherstocking series by James Fennimore Cooper. I read The Deerslayer (which is the first one) through gritted teeth because I had to, and I hated every step of the way, borrrrring. 50 pages to say he stepped over the log.

(I wonder, now, if I would find it so? It might make a great project if we tried to revisit something we hated personally to see if we have gained any insights? hahahaah).

ginny

F. Scott Fitzgerald is, I think, a classic but not by Twains definition. Fitzgerald is timeless, Ginny, even though books like "The Great Gatsby" are about the Roaring Twenties. His books are populated with people that could be -- and are -- in society today as well as being well crafted and swift moving. Please try him, snuggle up with a Fitzgerald soon!

Try Gatsby. Also try some of his short stories. One of my favorites is "A Diamond As Big As the Ritz" which gives us quite clearly Fitzgerald's impressions of the rich.

I love Joyce & wish we could read "Ulysses" here. A good stepping stone to this novel is his "Portrait...." and his interlinking short pieces. "Ulysses" isn't any more difficult than "Brothers Karamazov," easier in many ways. Now Joyce's last novel? That I haven't been able to get through even though it's supposed to be his greatest work.

Would all of these be classics? And that joking idea about 'revisiting' is kinda neat.

Marvelle

Ginny:--I'd have gone to someone who could translate it, then gone to a priest, had him write an answer in Latin, and then written on the bottom in English: "Every educated person reads Latin."

Robby

hahaahah, Robby, great minds run together, I was teaching his child Latin II at the time so answered that way. I need not tell you Dr. N----- responded in kind. ahhaahahaha

Marvelle, I will try Gatsby and since I love short stories will look out for a collection with that one in it, thank you.

I think Ulysses IS considered a Classic, I know it has been debated here for years whether or not to read it in the Great Books and I think it's definitely considered one.

I am not sure I've read any Joyce, come to think of it, but I have read Henry James, and I did not find him as long winded as people thought, I think a great deal of the writer's skill goes a long way against tedious detail.

I'm thinking of EF Benson whom I love and who can write on nothing and make it lighter than air and as refreshing.

ginny

Let's see, I have read Bulwer-Lytton, Joyce, Proust, Hugo, Thackery, Boccacio, Surikawa(?), Fitzgerald... Let's come up with a classics list, we seem to like making lists, our own standard for the well read.

Wait, wait. Let's come up with a non-read list, also. Those we detest after having read them. That would be fun: Don't Read These!

Mrs Watson, what would be on YOUR non read Classics List?

ginny

Well for me, its all of Herman Melville for sure. I also think George Eliot very very boring. My problem is I like plot.. Lots and lots of plot.. Move it along people... On the other hand,, I like Hemingway, Fitzgerald,Dickens, just like I said... PLOT. Oh well. I also love history. I have read some Joyce.. He is tough, but rewarding. The Brothers Karamazov...NO>>>> Most Russian novels are horrid to me.. Each person has about 5 names of their own,,, plus pet names and the plot moves like sludge. Whew.. Glad to get that out..

I second Karamazov. I haven't read Dante or Pilgrim's Progress, and won't. To Stephanie's Plot I would add emotional imvolvement. If that is lacking, I can't get into the story, no matter how intricate the plot.

I dislike Vergil who wrote political tracts. Any ISMs are turn offs to me. Give me Homer any day! He spoke of people and life. Most philosophers are deadly to read (sorry, phil fans). I was bored to tears by the Leviathan. Hummm. I have to think about who I cannot, will not, read again. I am assuming that these UNTOUCHABLES (authors) are ones that I have at least attempted to read.

Marvelle

Well it is only fair to give someone a trial. However as I grow older, I now have the ability and ruthlessness .. If they dont get me within the first 50 pages,, I am outta there.

Marvelle9:--Durant's "The Story of Civilization" starts this Sunday and we are starting with Volume One which is "Our Oriental Heritage." If this interests you, you are most welcome to participate but you might be especially interested when we get into Volume Two (Life of Greece.)

Robby

I have the books and especally enjoy the one dealing with the Renaissance. So I will be stopping by to put in my 2 cents worth. lol

gaj:--WONDERFUL!! Looking forward to your participation.

Robby

Classics Not Read: Moby Dick (the more I hear the less inclined I am to even give it a try); Fenimore Cooper - maybe movies are better sometimes;.........dare I even say it, no Brontes, no Jane Austin.

I have an excuse for my lapses. Long ago and faraway, when I was in the 8th grade our public high school administered the 12th level English exam, and if you passed it you just got plunked down in the middle of an "enrichment program" and at age thirteen (guess it was)I began a round of Shakespeare, Conrad and whoever else. We simply missed all the required "classics" unless we did them on our own.

FitzGerald: Never read him till last year. I think "Gatsby" is a stunning book, and to me it captures some of the moral underbelly of the American 20th century like nothing else does. I liked his short stories, though I have to say that though I agree with what was said about "A Diamond As Big as the Ritz" that I liked it least of all.

Proust: Still haven't finished "Remembrance," but I like what I've read.

Francois Mauriac: Am about to reread "Therese" and see if I still hold it in such high esteem.

Zola: Ditto for "Nana."

Jack

And I love Jane Austin.. Granted not from the high school reading, but from later when I was a young matron and decided my mind was dying home with the small ones and started on a solitary reading program. I fell on Jane.. and the Brontes and some other English authors with great delight and spent an entire winter living in cold and snow , but dreaming of England in another era entirely. What joy I had.

Speaking of things English, is Trollope considered classic fare? I've never read these, but have been thinking about starting. Is it worth my while?

Trollop. I liked some of it,, but not all. You have to be in the right mood. Dumas is the same way.. Must be careful and be just in the mood. Tom Wolfe affects me that way as well. He is so wordy at times. One word doesnt do it,needs 25 instead.

Hello Everyone! I've been reading some of your commentary about what a "classic" book is, and even though I haven't read all of the posts, it seems that everyone has missed the mark. A classic is not only "enduring" and "fresh", but a classic book is also one that broke new ground at the time it was published. It need not even be a "good" book by anyone's definition of the time or now, and it's certainly not a personal opinion. For instance, when you think of the mishmash of "Don Quixote" you wonder how that can be defined as a "classic" book. The plot is all over the place, there seems to be little continuity, some things in the book don't relate to previous things in the book; yet that's definitely considered a "classic" book. Why? Because it was one of the FIRST novels ever published. It gave birth to the whole genre of novels. So it's an important book just from that aspect. And anything that is the "first kid on the block" is not necessarily polished and well done. The important thing is that it broke new ground for future authors. By the way, that's also a VERY difficult book to read, the symbolism is very difficult, the plot is convoluted, but it is "enduring" because when you begin to realize what the symbolism in that book means you also begin to realize that it's messages are just as valid today as they have ever been and will ever be. For instance, the windmills that Don Quixote fights and which knock him off his horse, are symbols for all the great institutions of society, be they churches, governments, corporations, educational systems, "city hall". They are usually so big and powerful that they will always knock us around, but like don Quixote, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fight them and keep them in line, knowing that we will probably get knocked off our horses. Same with when he watches the puppet show and starts hacking at all the arms and legs of the puppets, and heads and body parts go flying in all directions. When I first read that I thought it was nuts, until I understood that the puppets were symbols for all the lies we have ever been told, by our parents, by our teachers, by our preachers, by the government, by anyone who wants to control our individuality and creativity to make us conform. And then the hacking away at them began to make sense. Anyhow, just felt the need to add to this discussion because having read Moby Dick (and I didn't particularly LIKE it) but having learned what the symbolism stood for, I can understand why it is an enduring classic. The lengthy and tedious descriptions are just the writing style of the time, and if you can get past that and learn what the book is REALLY ALL ABOUT, it becomes fascinating, a lesson in what it means to be human with vengeance in your heart that finally kills you because you can't let it go. All great books have "surface" meanings with a plot and characters, and also have a lot of symbolism that needs to be understood and the meanings dug for, with help from other people, if necessary. I know I always need help because I have such a hard time with symbolism, but once I "get it" it's like a whole new world opens up. Even the Bible is like that; it has surface stories and layers and layers of meaning beneath the surface. It's up to each reader to find the layers of meaning instead of putting the book aside and claiming "it says nothing". Sorry, can't resiste giving my opinion, and I know this was a lengthy one. LOL.

how nice to read your enlightening post. welcome to seniornet and thank you for sharing your thoughts. in what mountains do you live?

I just found SeniorNet and think I will like it here, but tend to come and go sporadically. I live in the Sierra Nevadas of Northern California where they merge with the Cascade Mountains, just south of Mount Lassen. Beautiful area! I love to read, but often need a lot of help with understanding what I'm reading. Of course, because the "classics" have been around for a long time there are a lot of critiques and explanations of them, so it's fairly easy to find the layers of meanings. It's a bit more difficult with the more contemporary books because they haven't been analyzed as much. I was wondering if anyone here writes customer critiques for Barnes and Noble or Amazon. I've found that to be fun sometimes. Recently I wrote one for "Violin" by Anne Rice where I think everyone missed the REAL meaning behind the book--but then, I guess everyone gets different things out of books and poetry. I recall always being at odds even with my teachers in English lit. So maybe I'm just very opinionated? LOL. Anyhow, it's nice to meet you all.

I recently did a review at one of the book seller's sites. It was for a book that 'knocked my socks off.' Since it was so easy I plan to do it again in the near future.:GinnyAnn:

Well, I've never read RUR, so I'm not sure I can answer the question. I didn't mean to imply that just because a book is a "first" it automatically becomes a classic. It's just one of the criteria that I've heard discussed, and it has to be a "first" in some important new way, the same way Pablo Picasso was in the field of art. The other day I read an old column of Marilyn von Savant where she dismissed Picasso as not very important as an artist, which shocked me coming from her, because I think she was dead wrong about that. Whether a person LIKES Picasso's work or not is totally beside the point. The reason he is such a leader in the field and could be considered "classic" as an artist is because he was a master of so many techniques and did so much to "open" new avenues of expression for artists. Because we humans are all inter-related it means someone begins the ball rolling by doing something brand new and unique, and then others pick up the ball, run with it, refine the techniques, etc. That's what human creativity is all about. I think the same holds for authors--a new way of writing a novel, new symbolism and metaphors, a common human experience portrayed in a brand new way, etc. Of course, a "classic" is also one that has to stand the test of time because much that is new is also very experimental and often useless. In fact, I think when society is chaotic is when "new" and important ways of doing things are discovered, and during times of peace and plenty is when they tend to get refined and polished and weeded out. I feel that with the rapid changes in our own society for the past 50 or so years, we are in a chaotic part of the ups and downs of history, and much of what we discover, invent, paint, write, is yet to be determined as either useful or not, classic or not. That's why it's also difficult to determine if a fairly recent book will or will not be a "classic". Just want you all to know that of all the discussion boards I've tried, I've seen more intelligent posts here than anywhere I've ever been. It's been absolutely wonderful reading!!!

I have done some reviews, but mostly because I was asked to do them. I think that the love or hate of a book depends so much on the reader and what they wanted out of it. I know the symbolism from college, but I still hate Moby Dick and much to my surprise, when it came out.. almost everyone did as well. To some extent the author and his or her influence on contemporary thought has a lot to do with the classic image. Some classics ( now) are books that were roundly disliked at moment of publishing. RUR.. well it is considered a science fiction classic. However I never liked his definition of a robot. I am an Isaac Asimov fan and liked his robots and the definition he used.

I think even the "experts" can't come up with a list of classics that would be the same list. There would be some books that are on everyone's list, and others might or might not be there, depending on the opinion of the expert. It's a fluid kind of thing which we in western society tend to be uncomfortable with, because we prefer the certainty of 2 + 2 always being 4. But I think in the creative arts that's not always true, which is why it's so fascinating. I do remember reading that one of the reasons "Madame Bovary" and "Anna Karenina" are considered classics is because those two books were first in their particular societies to took an in-depth look at female psychology, and the book "Two Years Before the Mast" is a classic because it is one of the FEW books that described what California was like when it was still owned by the Spanish landholders, besides the fact that it was an exciting sea voyage round the cape to get here. There are not many true descriptions of California during that time, and so that particular book has a place on the classics shelf just because of that, besides the fact that it was well written and exciting. Charles Dickens books are considered "classics" because he was one of the first authors to bring attention to the plight of the poor in England. His books influenced the society around him to try and make things better after his portrayal of the poor as real people with morals and feelings that were just as valid as the wealthy. His descriptions are also very lengthy, sometimes tedious, but when you peel all that away the message is profound. Are there any classics I don't like? No, I can't say that I have ever read one I don't like, even though I've read plenty that I haven't understood or may have been tedious to plow through. But once I did some research on what the author was trying to get at, the symbolism and metaphors he used to make his point, and made allowances for the language of the time, I have found them all to be intriguing in their own unique way. But it does take work to find the treasure within some of them.

Two Years is a perfectly splendid readable book. A good example of a classic that is also a great read. I am a Dickens fan from way back, but he is not often considered a classic writer by modern day professors. He has sort of gone out of style for some reasons. We are branching out in colleges in that they are trying to go into all cultures and find classics to teach. Some are just wonderful, but others are so far from our western culture, that the message is obscure to us.

hi all--i just came back to return your greetings, ginny. i don't hang around seniornet much anymore--just to delurk now and then!

I can remember reading To Kill a Mockingbird in my sophomore English class. I think it was the first book I read that was not one of the "best sellers" of the day...I would consider it a classic as it is so well written and the characters so believable. The teacher did something interesting after we read the book. He took a class session and showed us the film version of the movie..then we discussed how things were the same but different. Of course, this was the day before cable,and DVD's, so we as 15 year olds did not have alot of access to movies off the network television. It is just too bad that some of the kids today may not develop an interest in good reading. I also want to mention A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. Classis? Maybe or not..I just think it should be, as it tells the story of growing up in 1930's and 40's Brooklyn so well. I can see it beeing a timeless story. I think any good, well written story can at some time become a classic.

is one of my favorite books. I don't own a copy of it, but probably should, because I want to quote something from it. lol didn't it have something profound to say about a dandlelion growing up between the cracks in the cement? I can see her sleeping on the fire escape in the summer.
Maybe a classic is a story that stays with you long after you have closed its pages and put it on a shelf. It has become a part of the reader because we lived its pages as we read it.

I loved The Tree Grows in Brooklyn. It is funny since I lived on a farm deep in the country and yet felt as if she and I were sisters. The books is a universality sort of book. Should be a classic, but is not considered serious enough. Bah..

A classic has withstood the perils of criticism. The availability to the masses, the stability of time, and the continued interest of generation after generation....

Samuel Clemens once said: "You do not write a classic,you become one, long after you have gone". ....Mark..

Rusty Dog, that is a good definition of a 'classic'.

Are there any books on the Walden, Barnes and Noble, negihborhood book dispensers, that will be destined to become classics? I have difficulty in reading almost all current offerings. So many "authors" who copy either the masters or themselves just to provide food for their families or more often food for their "EGO".

To me, when reading the words I am reading should absorb me, to engulf my mind and spirit, so that I am a vital ingredient to the prose in my hand. I am now within the structure of the story. Be it a mystery, I am availed to solve the "case" or I am to commit the crime. I cannot be just an observer of this gathering of words. There must be depth, intelegence, and meaning to what my mind is consuming. If not, there is before me a waste of time, words, ink and paper. Most thoughts today are expressed in cyberspace. Good the words written can be deleted into the fathomless void technology has developed...Mark..

Wow, I was only passing through and the books you mentioned blew me away. In the past year I've read To Kill a Mockingbird and A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. I was swept away by both. A bit of trivia, did anyone know that Dill, the boy next door (in TKaMB) was a real person that lived next to Harper Lee? His name was Truman Capote!

Not long ago I finished Puddin'head Wilson by Mark Twain. I'd never read it nor was I even aware of it. It gets my vote as a classic I'd hate to have missed. One needs to get over the n-word as it was in common usage at the time. I am in awe of DNA, this book brings out the startling discovery of fingerprinting and that no two people have the same prints. If you decide to read this short novel, I hope it contains Those Extraordinary Twins as a follow on where Twain attempted a different variation on the story.

While on vacation I picked up Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. I'm enjoying it very much. Also has anyone read the Earth's Children Series by Jean Auel? She has the 5th sequal out. I just ordered it from Amazon.com.I'm looking forward to receiving it.

I think of Hemingway's "A Moveable Feast" as being a classic. Also, I was glad to read that "To kill a Mockingbird" was mentioned - I would have mention